Skip to main content

Table 1 A Comparison of Orthopaedic and Internal Medicine Program Directors’ Perceptions of the USMLE Step 1 Pass/Fail Transition: Likert Scale Responses

From: A comparison of orthopaedic surgery and internal medicine perceptions of USMLE Step 1 pass/fail scoring

  Orthopaedics-median Likert score (IQR) Internal Medicine-median Likert score (IQR) p-value
How do orthopaedic and internal medicine program directors feel about the pass/fail Step 1?
0 = strongly disagree, 1 = disagree, 2 = neutral, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree
 I agree with the change to pass/fail Step 1 0.0 (1.0) 1.0 (2.0) 0.313
 The decision to transition to pass/fail Step 1 was transparent and adequatelyinvolved all stakeholders 1.0 (1.0) 0.0 (1.0) 0.412
 A graded Step 1 adequately measured the ability of an applicant to succeed 2.0 (1.0) 2.0 (2.0) 0.574
How will a pass/fail Step 1 impact orthopaedic and internal medicine residency programs?
0 = strongly disagree, 1 = disagree, 2 = neutral, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree
 A pass/fail Step 1 will make the match process fair and meritocratic 2.0 (2.0) 1.0 (2.0) 0.028*
 A pass/fail Step 1 will help to create better future physicians 2.0 (2.0) 1.0 (2.0) 0.211
How will the pass/fail change impact the importance of the factors reviewed by orthopaedic and internal medicine residency programs when assessing applicants?
0 = significantly less important, 1 = less important, 2 = no change, 3 = more important,4 = significantly more important
 Step 1 exam result 0.0 (1.0) 1.0 (2.0) < 0.001*
 Step 2 CK 4.0 (1.0) 4.0 (1.0) 0.159
 Step 2 CS 2.0 (1.0) 2.0 (1.0) 0.423
 Grades in required clerkships 3.0 (1.0) 3.0 (1.0) 0.060
 Research experience 2.5 (1.0) 2.0 (0.0) < 0.001*
 Letters of recommendation from orthopaedic/internal medicine faculty thatprogram directors know 3.0 (1.0) 3.0 (1.0) < 0.001*
 Letters of recommendation from orthopaedic/internal medicine faculty thatprogram directors do not know 3.0 (1.0) 2.0 (1.0) 0.103
 Letters of recommendation from faculty not within specialty 2.0 (0.0) 2.0 (0.0) 0.350
 Personal statement 2.0 (0.0) 2.0 (0.0) 0.665
 Medical student performance evaluations (MSPE)/Dean’s letter 2.0 (1.0) 3.0 (1.0) 0.120
 Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) membership 3.0 (2.0) 2.0 (1.0) < 0.001*
 Gold Humanism Society membership 2.0 (1.0) 1.0 (1.0) 0.069
 Leadership/extracurriculars 3.0 (1.0) 2.0 (1.0) < 0.001*
 Personal knowledge of applicant 4.0 (1.0) 3.0 (2.0) < 0.001*
 Audition electives within department 4.0 (1.0) 3.0 (1.0) < 0.001*
How will various applicant groups be affected by the change to a pass/fail Step 1?
0 = greatly disadvantaged, 1 = disadvantaged, 2 = neutral, 3 = advantaged, 4 = greatlyadvantaged
 All MD students 2.0 (1.0) 2.0 (1.) 0.098
 MD students who attend a highly-regarded medical schools 3.0 (2.0) 3.0 (1.0) 0.599
 MD students who do not attend a highly-regarded medical school 1.0 (1.0) 1.0 (1.0) 0.011*
 DO students 1.0 (2.0) 1.0 (1.0) 0.001*
 International medical graduates (IMGs) 1.0 (2.0) 1.0 (1.0) 0.146
  1. Table 1 shows the distribution of responses, from all U.S. orthopaedic and internal medicine residency program directors, to our survey, specifically the responses to questions using a Likert scale. The bolded and italicized text in the table are the main questions asked in our survey, with the conditions of the Likert scale included. The median Likert scores were compared between orthopaedic and internal medicine program director. An asterisk (*) indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05). IQR indicates the interquartile range